For Official Use COM/TAD/CA/ENV/EPOC(2015)42

For Official Use COM/TAD/CA/ENV/EPOC(2015)42 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 21-Oct-2015

___________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________ English - Or. English TRADE AND AGRICULTURE DIRECTORATE

ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE

Joint Working Party on Agriculture and the Environment

SYNERGIES AND TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY, CLIMATE

CHANGE ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION: A POLICY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

9-10 November 2015

This document is submitted for DISCUSSION at the 40th session of the Joint Working Party on Agriculture and

the Environment. This work is mandated under the Programme of Work and Budget 2015-16, intermediate output

3.2.3.2.1 (3.2.3.2 Agriculture and Climate Change). Item 7a) of the Draft Agenda.

Ada IGNACIUK ([email protected])

JT03384605

Complete document available on OLIS in its original format

This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of

international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

CO

M/T

AD

/CA

/EN

V/E

PO

C(2

015)4

2

For O

fficial U

se

En

glish

- Or. E

ng

lish

COM/TAD/CA/ENV/EPOC(2015)42

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NOTE FROM THE SECRETARIAT ............................................................................................................. 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 5

1 A comprehensive assessment of existing policies: a first step towards increased synergies between

the three objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 6 2 Promoting synergies between the three objectives is important given the multiple challenges that

agricultural systems currently face .............................................................................................................. 7 3 A limited literature exists on policy effects of and trade-offs with regard to the three objectives ....... 8 4 Proposed policy assessment framework to illuminate trade-offs and synergies between the three

objectives ................................................................................................................................................... 10 4.1 The general set-up of the framework ......................................................................................... 10 4.2 Part I. Policy goals: how the three objectives are captured within the country’s policies ......... 13 4.3 Part II. Institutions: assessing institutional setting coherence between the three objectives ..... 15 4.4 Part III. Policies: identifying whether policies generate synergies or trade-offs between the

three objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 16 4.5 Part IV. Assessing how on the ground initiatives can inform policy design and

implementation ....................................................................................................................................... 28

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 30

APPENDIX 1 IMPACTS OF A SELECTION OF LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON

PRODUCTIVITY, CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION ....................................... 35

APPENDIX 2 SUGGESTED INDICATORS .............................................................................................. 39

Tables

Table 1. Key differences between mitigation and adaptation issues ................................................... 10 Table 2. Examples of policies with potential effects on the three pillars and their objectives ............ 17 Table 3. Examples of land management practices, and their impacts on productivity, climate change

adaptation, and greenhouse gas mitigation (Adapted from: Bryan et al., 2011) ........................................ 36

Figures

Figure 1. Effects of climate change on crop yields are likely to be negative in most regions ................ 8 Figure 2. Framework to assess policy effects with regard to the three objectives ................................ 11 Figure 3. Schematic of the interaction among the physical climate system, exposure and vulnerability

producing risk ............................................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 4. Short and long term potential intended and unintended effects of energy subsidies for irrigation24 Figure 5. Potential intended and unintended effects of crop insurance ................................................ 26 Figure 6. Potential intended and unintended effects of input subsidies ................................................ 28


3

Boxes

Box 1. Identifying key trends ..................................................................................................................... 13 Box 2. Assessing integration of objectives within national goals .............................................................. 15 Box 3. Identification and assessment of institutional coherence ............................................................... 16 Box 4. International and regional policies - Assessing policy effects ....................................................... 18 Box 5. National and local policies - assessing policy effects .................................................................... 18 Box 6. Sectoral policies beyond agriculture - assessing policy effects ...................................................... 19 Box 7. Agricultural policies - assessing policy effects .............................................................................. 20 Box 8. Agricultural R&D - Assessing policy effects ................................................................................. 21 Box 9. Extension & Advisory Services - assessing policy effects ............................................................. 21 Box 10. Identifying and assessing on the ground initiatives ...................................................................... 29


4

NOTE FROM THE SECRETARIAT

This work is mandated under the Programme of Work and Budget 2015-16, intermediate output

3.2.3.2.1 (3.2.3.2 Agriculture and Climate Change).

The preliminary framework presented at the 39th session of JWPAE

[COM/TAD/CA/ENV/EPOC(2015)8] has been revised taking into account comments from the Delegates

and additional findings.

The proposed framework is in the process of being tested with two country case studies (France and

the Netherlands). The results of this pilot testing are expected to help adjust the method. They will be

combined, at a later stage, with empirical results from the analytical model that the Secretariat is

developing.

This document is presented for DISCUSSION under Item 7 of the Draft Agenda of the 40th session of

the Joint Working Party on Agriculture and Environment.

http://www2.oecd.org/oecdinfo/info.aspx?app=OLIScoteEN&Ref=COM/TAD/CA/ENV/EPOC(2015)8


5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. In the coming decades, agriculture policies need to address the sector’s increasing challenges, in

particular climate change and increasing food demand. Climate change is expected to increase pressure on

the global agricultural system via increases in temperatures, more variable rainfall, more frequent and

intense extreme weather events. This challenge is juxtaposed with a rising demand for agricultural

commodities. Furthermore, agricultural production is affected by competition with other sectors of the

economy for vital resources, such as land and water. Therefore, governments need to address long-term

issues while designing policy strategies to increase agricultural productivity in a sustainable and climate

resilient manner.

2. Governments are increasingly aware of the need to implement policies that aim to

simultaneously achieve sustainable productivity improvement, enhance adaptation to climate change and

contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation (hereafter referred to as the three objectives). Policy

makers’ interests in initiatives such as Green Growth, Climate Smart Agriculture, Sustainable

Intensification and Bio-economy reflect the importance of achieving synergies between these objectives.

3. But, there is still a disconnection between how political agendas highlight sustainability issues,

and climate change in particular, and the goals that existing policies are designed to achieve. In order to

support encompassing policies that are coherent with the three objectives governments need to identify

whether there are bottlenecks in terms of existing policies that stimulate unsustainable and GHG-prone

practices in agriculture.

4. However, systematic assessments to understand whether current policies are well-aligned with

the three objectives have been scarce. The agricultural sector (including forestry) is subject to a wide range

of national and international regulations, macroeconomic and structural policies, as well as to policies

specific to the agricultural sector itself. These policies have intended and unintended effects on the three

objectives that are rarely assessed and sometimes inconsistent.

5. This document presents a qualitative framework for systematically identifying and assessing the

intended and unintended effects of existing policies on the three objectives: agricultural productivity,

climate change adaptation and mitigation. As a tool for policy makers, this framework aims to help them

to:

Evaluate the integration of the three objectives within the policy making process,

Assess the coherence of the institutional setting regarding the three objectives,

Identify and assess the synergies and trade-offs that policies generate between the three

objectives of agricultural productivity, adaptation and mitigation,

Identify initiatives on the ground and assess how they could inform policy design and

implementation.


6

1 A comprehensive assessment of existing policies: a first step towards increased synergies

between the three objectives

6. Governments are increasingly aware of the need to implement policies that aim to simultaneously

achieve productivity improvement1, enhance adaptation to climate change and contribute to greenhouse

gas (GHG) mitigation (hereafter referred to as the three objectives). Policy makers’ interests in initiatives

such as Green Growth, Climate Smart Agriculture and Bio-economy reflect the importance of creating

synergies and achieving various goals at the same time.

7. Encompassing and coherent policies across the three objectives are however limited within

current policy setting and systematic assessments of current policies alignment with the three objectives

are needed. Integrating adaptation and mitigation objectives into existing productivity-enhancing policies

may not be sufficient if existing policies send conflicting messages to farmers. The agricultural sector

(including forestry) is subject to a wide range of national and international regulations, macroeconomic and

structural policies, as well as to policies specific to the agricultural sector itself. These policies have

intended and unintended effects on the three objectives, but they are rarely assessed. Assessing the effects

of policies with regard to the three objectives can contribute to understanding if and how policies induce

synergies or trade-offs. Importantly, a systematic assessment can also help evaluate which trade-offs are

acceptable, and identify areas for policy alignment or new policy action.

8. This document presents a qualitative framework for a systematic identification and assessment of

a range of policies and of their intended and unintended effects on three objectives: agricultural

productivity, climate change adaptation and mitigation. As a tool for policy makers, this framework aims

to:

Evaluate the integration of the three objectives within the policy making process,

Assess the coherence of the institutional setting regarding the three objectives,

Identify and assess policies that generate synergies and trade-offs between the three objectives of

productivity, adaptation and mitigation,

Identify initiatives on the ground and assess how they could inform policy design and

implementation

9. This work is designed as a complement to the OECD initiative on assessing policies to improve

sustainable agricultural productivity growth (OECD, 2015a). While the latter focuses, to a large extent, on

policies to improve agricultural productivity growth sustainably, the framework presented in this document

concentrates on the interactions between agricultural productivity growth and the climate change

dimension of sustainability (adaptation and mitigation). The framework presented here therefore

complements the sustainable productivity framework and aims to shed light on how policies generate

synergies or trade-offs between increased productivity and the two key climate objectives of adaptation

and mitigation.

10. Section 2 of this report presents the rationale of promoting synergies between the three

objectives given the short and long-term challenges agriculture faces. Section 3 reviews the limited

findings in the literature. Section 4 discusses the general set up of the framework. Each of the four parts of

the framework is discussed in separate sub sections. Examples of policies with impact on synergies and

trade-offs between the three objectives are included in the last sub-section. Section 5 provides concluding

remarks.

1 The main objectives are: 1) productivity improvement, 2) increased adaptation, and 3) GHGs emission reduction.

Throughout the document they are referred as 1) productivity, 2) adaptation and 3) mitigation.


7

2 Promoting synergies between the three objectives is important given the multiple challenges

that agricultural systems currently face

11. Agriculture faces challenges to balance a rising demand for agricultural commodities with

constrained and deteriorating natural resources necessary for food production. Demand for agricultural

products continues to increase because of population growth, changes in diet, and the need for alternative

energy and fibre sources. At the same time, the availability of productive land with good quality is

decreasing for agricultural expansion in many countries (Steenwerth et al., 2014) and the competition for

other necessary resources such as water and minerals increases.

12. Several agricultural commodities face a slow down of yield growth. In many European countries,

the growth trend of cereal yields has been declining from the mid-90s, which can – at least partially – be

attributed to increased heat stress during grain filling and drought during stem elongation (Brisson, et al

2010). The OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2015-2024 projects a further decline in yield growth for

cereals and oilseeds. In the case of Brazilian wheat, maize and soy as well as of Paraguayan soy, the

changes in temperature and precipitation between 1980 and 2008 have also slowed the expected yield

increase trends (Marengo et al. 2014). Climate disruptions to agricultural production in the US have

increased in the past 40 years and this trend is likely to continue (USNCA, 2014).

13. Extreme events already trigger serious economic consequences on agriculture. For example, the

2013 flood in Pakistan caused an estimated USD 1.91 billion in losses to the agriculture sector (Business

Insurance, 2013). During the droughts of 2011 and 2012 on the US Great Plains, ranchers liquidated large

herds due to lack of food and water. Many cattle were sold to slaughterhouses; others were relocated to

other pastures through sale or lease (Shafer, 2014). The indirect effect of heat stress, moreover, increased

vulnerability of livestock to disease, reduced fertility, and reduced milk production. Overall, it is expected

that climate disruptions to agriculture are projected to become more severe over this century (USNCA,

2014).

14. Climate change will have direct negative effects on agriculturefor most regions and crops. This

will depend on the intensity of individual changes in temperature and precipitation but also on their

combination. Projected effects of climate change include increased temperatures, increased variability in

temperature and rainfall patterns, changes in water availability, increased frequency and intensity of

extreme weather events, and changes in ecosystems (Beddington et al., 2012b; Gornall et al., 2010;

Wheeler and von Braun, 2013; USNCA, 2014). Towards the end of the century, climate change is

projected to negatively affect the growth rates of yields for most crops, especially at higher levels of

warming and at low latitudes. Figure 1 presents the projected effects of climate change on a selection of

crops across various regions. The average yields of a majority of crops, in practically all regions, are likely

to be negatively affected by climate change. In OECD countries, the yields of maize, wheat and rice are

projected to be lower, on average, by 10%, 7% and 6%, respectively by 2050, as compared to a situation

where current climate conditions would prevail (Ignaciuk and Mason D’Croz, 2014).


8

Figure 1. Effects of climate change on crop yields are likely to be negative in most regions

(Central projection, percent change in yields under RCP 8.5 in 2050 relative to current climate)

Source : IMPACT model, based on the AgMIP study

15. Agriculture is also contributing a significant share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that

are causing climate change – 17% directly through agricultural activities and an additional 7% to 14%

through changes in land use (Tubiello et al., 2014; IPCC, 2007). The main direct agricultural GHGs

emissions are nitrous oxide emissions from soils, applications of fertilizers, manure and urine from grazing

animals, and methane production by ruminant animals (enteric fermentation) and paddy rice cultivation.

Nitrous oxide and methane are two important GHGs in terms of total global warming potential,

representing 6.2% and 16% of total global warming potential respectively, with agriculture accounting for

58% of total anthropogenic nitrous oxide emissions and for 47% of total anthropogenic methane emissions

(IPCC AR5, 2014). Agriculture is expected to remain the main source of these non-CO2 gases in the

coming decades (USEPA, 2013). This trend is particularly concerning given the significantly higher global

warming potential of nitrous oxide and methane relative to CO2. In addition, the sector generates emissions

indirectly due to changes in land use, including land clearing and deforestation.

16. In view of these challenges governments should promote policies that stimulate sustainable

agricultural productivity growth by exploiting synergies with both climate objectives. And perhaps even

more importantly, governments should avoid crucial trade-offs that arise from policies that are not fully

aligned. The agricultural sector is projected to have structurally lower yield growth rates, will experience

substantial direct and indirect impacts from climate change damages, and may face additional costs from

stringent economy-wide mitigation policies.

3 A limited literature exists on policy effects of and trade-offs with regard to the three

objectives

17. Analysing synergies and trade-offs across the three objectives – as well as identifying strategies

to address such trade-offs - has received limited attention in the literature. By far, most policy analyses

still investigate productivity, adaptation and mitigation aspects in silos of one or at most two objectives at a

time. Furthermore, most approaches to address climate change through policy are in their initial phase in

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Can

ada

Chi

le

Mex

ico

US

A

EU

larg

e 4

Oth

er O

EC

D E

U

Oth

er O

EC

D

Aus

. & N

ewZ

.

Japa

n

Kor

ea

Chi

na

Non

-OE

CD

EU

Rus

sia

Cas

pian

reg

ion

Oth

er E

urop

e

Bra

zil

Oth

er L

at.A

m.

Mid

dle

Eas

t

Nor

th A

fric

a

AS

EA

N 9

Indo

nesi

a

Indi

a

Oth

er A

sia

Sou

th A

fric

a

Oth

er A

fric

a

OECD America OECD Europe OECD Pacific Rest of Europe & Asia LatinAmerica

Middle East& NorthAfrica

South and South-EastAsia

SubSaharan

Africa

Rice Wheat Other grains Fruits and vegetables Sugar cane and -beet Oil seeds Plant fibres


9

the agricultural sector (e.g. identifying vulnerabilities, risk assessments and data collection) and most

countries are yet to determine how to appropriately implement climate change policies (Duguma et al.,

2014). Based on the available literature, this section makes a brief reference to the way in which synergies

and trade-offs between the three objectives are currently being approached in the literature.

18. The existing literature indicates that policies and policy interactions may involve unintended and

adverse effects on objectives other than the one(s) directly targeted. In the words of Hove et al., (2014), “at

both the national and international levels, uncoordinated and at times conflicting policies spanning

economic development, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and food security can generate perverse

incentives and conflicting goals that hinder a more holistic approach to agriculture”. Similarly, OECD-

IEA-ITF-NEA (2015) argues that “government interventions to address climate change necessarily interact

with policies in many other areas and this may cause frictions and unintended consequences, if not outright

contradictions, as these policy interactions engage”. For instance, policies that promote the expansion of

feedstock production for biofuels might conflict with policies designed to reduce emissions from

deforestation and forest degradation (Pachecho et al., 2012), While promoting biofuel production could

result in GHG emission reduction outside of the agricultural sector (as result of substituting fossil fuels

with biofuels), GHG emissions from the agricultural sector could increase if new land is brought into

production by converting forests and wetlands into cropland. This is aggravated if the production of

biofuels involves the use of carbon-intensive chemical fertilizers and fossil fuels, and if production takes

place on already water scarce areas.

19. There is no unified metrics to measure the performance of policies on all three objectives.

Growth in environmentally adjusted multi-factor productivity (EATFP) - which measures a country’s

(sector’s) ability to generate income from a given set of inputs, while accounting for the use of natural

resources and production of undesirable environmental outputs – could be used to measure sustainable

productivity increase. But the task of estimating agricultural EATFP remains challenging (OECD, 2014a).

Mitigation actions via foregone emissions of GHGs or via sequestered carbon can be assessed using

estimates of CO2 equivalents. From the climate change perspective, while asbolute emissions reductions

are the main goal, the reductions of emissions intensity per unit of output is also desirable, as a step in the

right directions, and can be used as a secondary measure of progress in emission reductions. There is

however, no consensus on what the metrics of adaptation should be (Ford et al., 2013). Ignaciuk (2015)

discusses various ways to measure different proxies that can help monitoring progress in adaptation. Due

to the particular aspects of adaptation, such measures are hardly comparable betweeen countries. Appendix

2 suggests some indicators to measure the effects of policies on the three objectives.

20. Despite a growing recognition of the need to pursue mitigation and adaptation objectives in

agricultural systems, most adaptation and mitigation efforts continue to be approached individually. And

this is the case even though agriculture and climate change issues currently have a high profile of in policy

discussions Policy discussions have traditionally treated climate change mitigation and adaptation as

parallel, separate issues (Harvey et al., 2014, Hove, 2011). At the international and national levels,

adaptation and mitigation are addressed through different processes, discussed in parallel policy debates

that are rarely linked, led by distinct ministries or institutions, and involve different constituencies and

funding sources (Verchot et al., 2007; Locatelli et al., 2008, 2011). Mitigation is primarily driven by

international agreements (e.g. the Kyoto Protocol of the UNFCCC) and ensuing national public policies

whereas most adaptation is focused on local or national actions designed to minimize climate-change

impacts on local communities (Klein et al. 2007; Biesbroek et al., 2009). In the international context,

adaptation and mitigation are linked through the topic of climate finance, but this link translates more in

terms of competition for the same scarce resources, rather than in the implementation of specific policies.

This segmented policy approach may partly be a result of the key differences between mitigation and

adaptation; although they both aim at reducing the potential negative impacts of climate change, the spatial

and temporal scales they address create different implementation incentives (as described in Table 1).


10

Table 1. Key differences between mitigation and adaptation issues

Mitigation Adaptation

Spatial scale Primarily an international issue, as mitigation provides global benefits

Primarily a local issue, as adaptation mostly provides benefits at the local scale

Time scale Mitigation has a long-term effect because of the inertia of the climatic system

Adaptation can have a short-term effect on the reduction of vulnerability

Policy scale Mitigation actions require collective engagements on national and international levels

Adaptation actions can provide local benefits, requiring national, regional and local level initiatives

Source: adapted from Locatelli, 2011 and Ignaciuk, 2015.

21. Further research is needed to address the knowledge gap on intended and unintended effects of

agricultural and environmental policies, as well as on the level of coherence between them. Not enough

attention has been put on assessing whether existing policies induce synergies or trade-offs between

productivity and climate objectives at the country or the global level. Therefore, there is a need for a

systematic identification and assessment of policy effects and policy coherence. Such an assessment will

help identify trade-offs, assess if they are acceptable or if they can be minimized, as well as assess if and

how synergies could be exploited.

4 Proposed policy assessment framework to illuminate trade-offs and synergies between the

three objectives

4.1 The general set-up of the framework

22. The framework presented in this document is designed as a tool to help decision makers to

systematically identify and assess existing policy effects across the three objectives. Many questions

proposed in this framework relate to impact assessment. The objective behind such questions is to

understand whether governments have performed such assessments and whether they have elements that

can be used for (partial) assessment. Such studies are not necessarily published and available in the

literature. Highlighting assessment gaps may help identify where policy assessments is needed, while

available assessment will help identify potential trade-offs.

4.1.1 The main building blocks of the framework

23. This framework builds essentially on two existing OECD works: i) The framework Analysing

Policies to Improve Agricultural Productivity Growth Sustainably which considers the full range of policy

incentives and disincentives (within and beyond the agricultural sector) with a potential impact on

sustainable agricultural productivity and innovation (OECD, 2015a); and ii) the policy coherence approach

developed by the OECD Policy Coherence for Development unit (2015f). This sustainable productivity

framework was applied to four countries; i) Canada (OECD, 2014b), Brazil (OECD, 2014c), Australia

(2015h) and the Netherlands (2015c). While not a goal in itself, policy coherence is a useful lens through

which policy effects are identified and assessed. Key conclusions from the OECD Coherent Policies for

Climate Smart Agriculture workshop (hosted by the Korean Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural

Affairs 17-18 June, 2015 on Jeju Island, Korea) are also integrated into this framework.

24. A necessary prerequisite to assessing the synergies and trade-offs is to understand the key trends

related to climate change and adaptive capacity of agricultural systems and farmers in a given country. The

framework presented in this document includes four parts: (I) policy goals; (II) institutions; (III) policies;

and (IV) on the ground initiatives (Figure 1). These parts integrate a top-down approach (Parts I to III) and

bottom-up approach (Part IV). Part I aims at understanding how the three objectives can are captured


11

within the overal country’s policy goals and which of the objectives is prioritized. Part II of the framework

aims at identifying relevant institutions and assessing institutional coherence challenges. Part III of the

framework helps to identify and asses policy effects in terms of whether they generate synergies or trade-

offs across the three objectives. Part IV complements the top-down approach of Parts I-III by: i)

identifying on the ground initiatives involving both synergies and trade-offs across the three objectives,

and ii) assessing how these initiatives can inform policy design and implementation.

Figure 2. Framework to assess policy effects with regard to the three objectives

Part IPolicy goals

Part IIInstitutions

Part IIIPolicies

Part IVOn the ground

initiatives

Identifyinggoals

Assessing integration

of objectives

Identifying policies

Assessing policy effects

Identifying Institutions

Assessingcoherence

Identifying on the ground initiatives

Assessing how these can

inform policy design

Trends

25. The rest of this section reviews the role of each part of the framework and proposes a set of

questions to guide policy makers throughout the assessment. As a caveat, this framework is not designed to

compare countries but rather to highlight country specific policy incoherencies. The questions included in

this framework aim to identify potential effects of policies on the three objectives, and more importantly to

assess how policies might be resulting in trade-offs between the three objectives. The questions included in

the framework are not exhaustive, though. Moreover, the relevance of questions and sections may vary

across countries. Appendix 2 includes “suggested indicators” for each part to guide data collection and

analysis. It includes a set of the Green Growth indicators (OECD 2014d). Additionally, countries may have

developed an additional set of indicators and are invited to use them. It is also important to note that

indicators are not necessarily available, for instance, to measure qualitative policy effects and trade-offs;

identifying such gaps may be an important finding in itself.

4.1.2 The first step: identification of key trends including socio-economic and climate change trends

26. Identifying key trends can help determine goals that should be prioritized, and areas where

policy action is most needed. Policy makers need to consider key trends related to climate change,

agricultural systems and farmers, namely: (i) climate related hazards; ii) levels of exposure, vulnerability,

and adaptive capacity of agricultural systems and farmers; iii) potential risks and impacts on agricultural

systems and farmers; and (iv) potential impacts of agricultural systems on climate. Information on these

trends will be key to assessing whether current policies are contributing to sustainable and climate –

friendly agriculture production in the future. Risks are determined by the interaction of climate-related

hazards with exposure and vulnerabilities of societies or ecosystems (Figure 3).


12

Figure 3. Schematic of the interaction among the physical climate system, exposure and vulnerability producing risk

Source : IPCC, 2014

27. There are large uncertainties associated with climate change impacts on agricultural systems and

farmers, as the above factors and their combination are locally specific. Climate change impacts may be

positive or negative, and the causality between climate change and weather events is not always clear.

Uncertainty in terms of the impacts of agricultural systems on climate is also a common issue; this is due

partly to the generally fluctuating and diffuse nature of emissions within agricultural production, as well as

to the complex relations between production and other stages of the agricultural value chain and between

the sector and other sectors

28. Furthermore, knowledge and information regarding climate trends might not always be available

or adequate. More specifically, key trends (identified through meteorological tools, weather stations,

seasonal weather forecasts, early warning systems and impact assessments, amongst others) could show if,

how and where droughts, temperature increases, extreme events or natural disasters could impact

agricultural and human systems. Lack of information might be obstructing the integration and prioritization

of climate objectives. In these situations, policy could potentially play a role by promoting investments in

knowledge creation (through the development of adequate tools) and management, specifically in relation

to climate change. A variety of questions, can guide countries in identifying the key trends mentioned

above (Box 1).


13

Box 1. Identifying key trends

What are the key trends in terms of climate change hazards and risks? Including: the probability of occurrence and frequency of weather events, as well as emergent risks involving non-climate stressors; including the management of water, land, and energy.

What are some key trends in terms of productivity (TFP), levels of vulnerability and adaptive capacity of agricultural systems and farmers, with regard to climate change?

Are climate change impacts on agricultural systems, productivity levels, and farmers already observable?

What are the expected impacts of climate change on agricultural systems, productivity levels and farmers?

What are the trends in terms of GHG emissions generated by the agricultural sector, disaggregated by agricultural activities (including forestry)? How have the above trends been identified?

Has the public sector disseminated information with regard to these key trends?

4.2 Part I. Policy goals: how the three objectives are captured within the country’s policies

29. This section clarifies what are the three objectives and guides policy makers in assessing how the

objectives are (or not) integrated into country’s policies.

4.2.1 Objective 1 - Agricultural productivity

30. Improving productivity is a key factor on which growth of an economy is influenced (OECD,

2015a). Agricultural productivity is the ability of the sector to convert inputs (such as capital, labour, land

and other natural resources) into commodities. It is commonly defined as a ratio of a volume measure of

output to a volume measure of input use. Productivity improves if the same use of inputs (e.g. capital,

labour and land) produces a larger volume of output or, alternatively, if the same volume of output is

achieved by means of less inputs (COM/TAD/CA/ENV/EPOC(2015)2). When agricultural productivity

increases, resources (including labour and capital) can be released from food production to expand the non-

agricultural sectors of the economy; natural resources such as land and water can also be used for

environmental purposes. If populations continue to grow and natural resource stocks continue to be

depleted at the current rate, growth in agricultural productivity without adversely affecting the natural

resources will become increasingly important (OECD, 2014a). Agricultural productivity growth can

contribute to: (i) improving food security; (ii) poverty reduction; (iii) sustaining agricultural employment

and livelihoods, (iv) increasing national revenues and economic growth and (v) increasing environmental

services. The extent to which increased agricultural productivity will influence the above mentioned

elements depends in part on the country characteristics

4.2.2 Objective 2 - Climate change adaptation

31. Countries increasingly stress the importance of adaptive actions against locally-specific climate

change related risks and vulnerabilities. Moreover, managing climate change risks, as well as pursuing

adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change and increasing the resilience of agriculture (among

other sectors) preveils on most national adaptation strategies (Ignaciuk, 2015). However, interpretations on

how to achieve these overarching goals differ. For instance, in the case of the Netherlands, increasing the

overall sustainability and resilience of the agricultural sector, is the priority (Martijin Root, Coherent

Policies for Climate Smart Agriculture Workshop).

2 Expert workshop measuring environmentally adjusted agricultural total factor productivity and its determinant.


14

32. Adaptation actions in agriculture, as defined by the IPCC, should be aimed primarily at

increasing the adaptive capacity of agricultural systems and securing long-term agricultural productivity.

When levels of risk and vulnerability are extremely high, and impossible or costly to address, adaptation

can involve considering alternative production systems, alternative products, non-farm income sources or

the geographical relocation of communities. Actions aiming at responding to climate change impacts in the

short term but increasing vulnerability and potentially affecting productivity in the long run, would be

better termed as ‘coping strategies’ rather than adaptation measures. Such actions may lead to

maladaptation3 - resulting in increased environmental and climate degradation and in increased

vulnerability in the long term.

4.2.3 Objective 3 - Climate change mitigation

33. Mitigation actions aim at reducing GHG concentration through reduction of emissions and

enhancement of carbon stocks. Reducing GHG emissions in agriculture can be achieved, for instance,

through policies to promote (i) switching from emission intensive inputs to GHG-neutral substitutes; (ii)

increasing the efficiency of input use; or (iii) changing soil management and tillage practices. Currently,

most of low- and medium income countries do not include mitigation actions in their agricultural policy

objectives. High-income countries stress the need to include mitigation efforts by the agricultural sector,

but beyond emission reduction through more efficient resource use, limited actions have been undertaken.

Setting policy targets for planned mitigation in agriculture can be challenging, notably for two reasons: (i)

it is generally argued that reducing emissions from the sector should not compromise the ability of the

agricultural sector to sufficiently provide food and other products; and (ii) emissions from the sector are

generally diffuse and fluctuating in nature.

4.2.4 Assessing the integration of objectives in the policy making process

34. The process of integrating the three objectives within the national policy making process is

challenging. In recent years, various countries, have gradually introduced sustainable productivity and

climate change adaptation in policy design and implementation. The extent and levels of integration vary

across countries. Integration can be i) reflected in the legal, policy and instutional framework, for instance

through national adaptation plans or sectoral plans ii) limited to programme or project design and

implementation; or iii) both. Integration of objectives should take place at different levels: national, local

or sectoral plans and programmes. Integrating these objectivesobjectives, might represent progress in

addressing climate change challenges for the agricultural sector, nevertheless the particularities of the

integration process should be assessed.

35. Policy makers should assess not only if and to what extent they have integrated the three

objectives but also if the prioritization of objectives corresponds to their international commitments,

national development priorities and climate related risks and impacts.

36. Moreover policy makers should determine if and when some trade-offs between the three

objectives objectivesand are acceptable (given that double or triple wins are not always possible).

Synergies and trade-offs between policy objectives might be present, for instance, in situation

whereproductivity is prioritized overadaptation or mitigation, i.e. when policies put in place

environmentally harmful subsidies to increase short term productivity). Prioritising one or two of the three

objectives, however, does not necessarily mean that the other objective(s) are not taken into consideration.

Box 2 is designed to guide the assessment of the integration of objectives in the policy making process

3 . Maladaptation refers to actions or inaction that may lead to increased risk of adverse climate-related outcomes,

increased vulnerability to climate change, or diminished welfare, now or in the future


15

Box 2. Assessing integration of objectives within national goals

Are the three objectives of agricultural productivity, climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation policy priorities?

Have these objectives been formally included in the country legislation, national, rural and sectoral development plans?

How do the legal framework, policy framework and budget allocation reflect the prioritization of objectives and objectives?

Have these objectives been included in (public) programme and project design and implementation?

If yes, what are the specific objectives and targets set for and within each objective?

Does the government prioritize one objective over others? Which one(s)?

What is the rationale identified by governments behind the integration and prioritization of objectives? (e.g. international agreements, national priorities, key trends related to climate change and socio-economic characteristics)

4.3 Part II. Institutions: assessing institutional setting coherence between the three objectives

37. Even when the three objectives have been integrated in the policy making process, they are

generally addressed by different institutions and funded through different mechanisms. Therefore,

countries should assess institutional setting coherence and coordination challenges at the international,

regional, national and local levels. This requires assessing (i) if institutions are working in coordination

with each other, and through which intra and inter-institutional mechanisms and (ii) if and how

institutional setting coherence and coordination issues are or could be identified, monitored and addressed.

38. Identifying key institutions and stakeholders responsible for addressing the three objectives, and

analysing institutional effectiveness and coordination (for the design, implementation, monitoring and

evaluation of policies, programmes and projects) are essential to determining how the objectives and the

associated strategies and funding mechanisms are integrated and distributed between and within various

institutions. The lack of co-ordination and co-operation and a segmented institutional approach might

result in trade-offs between and within objectives. Identifying institutional coherence challenges, could

ultimately contribute to creating synergies between different objectives. Box 3 is designed to guide the

assessment of institutional coherence.


16

Box 3. Identification and assessment of institutional coherence

What are the main institutions responsible for designing and implementing policies in relation to the three objectives? (At the international, national, local and sectoral levels)

What are the main funding mechanisms with regard to the three objectives? (At the national, local and sectoral levels)

Have there been studies to identify inter and intra-institutional coordination issues between relevant institutions?

Do institutions address the planning, implementation and funding of the three objectives separately or jointly? What are the implications of addressing these objectives separately or jointly?

Have formal mechanisms been established to improve inter and intra-institutional coordination and policy arbitration, with regard to the three objectives?

What mechanisms exist to balance the interests of diverse institutions and stakeholders?

Do these mechanisms define clear mandates and responsibilities? Are they able to formulate national positions on policy options and to resolve conflicts between the views and responsibilities of various institutions and stakeholders?

4.4 Part III. Policies: identifying whether policies generate synergies or trade-offs between the

three objectives

39. This section helps to identify and assess a range of policies that may affect the three objectives in

direct and indirect ways. First, a broad map of various policies is presented. Second, each of the main

policy areas is discussed separately and a range of guiding questions are proposed in order to help assess

the impacts of various policies on the three objectives. Third, based on a literature review, four examples

are presented, each detailing a preliminary assessment for one specific policy.

4.4.1 Identifying relevant policies

40. A wide range of international and national regulations, economy-wide policies and sector-

specific policies create a diverse set of incentives and disincentives to achieve progress across the three

objectives in the agricultural sector. As such, poorly designed policies might not only be ineffective in

achieving their explicit objective(s), but they might also generate unintended negative effects on the other

objectives.

41. Although the effects of a particular policy and of policy interactions will vary across countries, it

is possible to identify policies that often have significant effects on the three objectives. Table 2 lists a

range of policies at the international, national, local and sectoral levels are likely to impact at least one of

the three objectives. While not an exhaustive list, the table provides a starting point for policy makers to

identify policies they may need to evaluate in their domestic context.


17

Table 2. Examples of policies with potential effects on the three objectives and their objectives

4.4.2 Assessing the effects of policies on the objectives

42. This section discusses the effects of policies on the three objectives for four main policy areas: i)

international and regional policies, ii) national and local policies, iii) sectoral policies beyond agriculture

and iv) agricultural policies. The section also guides policy makers in assessing the impacts of various

policies on the three objectives.

43. It is impossible to distill the exact impact of a particular policy initiative on the three objectives

because there are many other factors that are influencing and hence diluting the signals. These socio-

economic and behavioural and other influences will have an effect on how a particular policy is

implemented, and how a policy affects behaviour and thus the impacts of the policy on the economy. .

International and regional policies

44. International trade and economic co-operation agreements, as well as climate frameworks,

agreements and coalitions will have intended and unintended effects on the three objectives. For instance,

international phytosanitary standards, import tariffs, import quotas, and commodity prices in international

markets, affect domestic production and productivity trends. These may also have an effect on GHG

emission patterns. International climate policies or commitments, such as the Kyoto Protocol or the

Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC), may set specific targets for emission reductions at

the national and sectoral level.

International & Regional

Trade & economic cooperation agreements

WTO regulations and agreements Bilateral, regional and multilateral trade agreements Regional Agricultural Policies

Climate frameworks, agreements & coalitions

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Kyoto Protocol Global Climate Change Alliance Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture COP 21- Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC)

National

National development plans

National adaptation plans

National Adaptation Funds National Regulations

Local

Rural development plans Public investments on rural development priority areas (infrastructure, education, health) Taxes on incomes and property

Sectoral

Land Legislation and policies outlining the allocation of national land resources: land rights, distribution, acquisition, management, use, forms of tenure

Non Agricultural (Energy, infrastructure, water, mining, & trade)

Blending mandates Tariffs or import barriers to promote domestic production of biofuels or fossil fuels Support for investment, tax credits, exemptions or reductions related to mine exploration and development Water and energy support for irrigation

Social protection

Insurance mechanisms Cash transfers

Agriculture

Tax reductions, exemptions or credits for farmers Market price support Income support: coupled or decoupled payments Environmental payments Input subsidies Investments in research and development Advisory and extension programmes


18

45. Countries should identify and assess the effects and coherence of international and regional

policies with regard to the three objectives. There may be incoherencies among different international and

regional agreements, as well as between these and domestic policies. Such incoherencies may potentially

lead to trade-offs between the objectives. For instance, an INDC might set specific targets for emission

reductions for the country while existing sectoral policies are incentivising practices that increase GHG

emissions, for example through subsidizing energy consumption for irrigation or providing tax cuts or

other incentives that promote the use of fossil fuels. Box 4 is designed to guide the assessment of the

international and regional policies.

Box 4. International and regional policies - Assessing policy effects

What are the most relevant trade, cooperation and climate agreements with potential effects on the three objectives?

Have the effects of trade, cooperation and climate agreements with regard to the three objectives been identified? If yes, what are they?

Is there coherence amongst signed or ratified international and regional agreements, in terms of the productivity or production, climate change adaptation or mitigation goals they aim to achieve?

Is there coherence between international and regional agreements on the one hand and national, local and sectoral plans and policies on the other hand with regards to the three objectives?

How are international and regional agreements integrated in the domestic policy setting? What is their influence on the three objectives?

National and local policies

46. National development, adaptation and rural development plans provide evidence on the extent to

which the three objectives have been formally integrated in the national priority areas. National regulations

may encourage productivity, mitigation and adaptation in areas such as the use of land and natural

resources, emission standards and targets, and the use of fertilizers and fuels in the sector. Box 5 helps

policy makers to assess whether and how existing regulations are affecting synergies and trade-offs in

agricultural productivity, adaptation and mitigation.

Box 5. National and local policies - assessing policy effects

Do national, rural and local development, adaptation and mitigation plans set specific objectives and strategies for the agricultural sector?

How do urban policies (e.g. policies related to urban development or policies regulating drinking water quality) affect the agricultural sector?

Are there national regulations that include specific provisions or restrictions on the allocation of national land resources: land rights, distribution, acquisition, management, use, forms of tenure? What are the visible or potential implications for the three objectives?

Have certain policies effectively incentivized regulations directly promoting specific types of production over others: forestry production or conservation; agricultural production of certain crops for food, energy or fiber; specific management practices or technologies; livestock production; or urbanization?

Are there national regulations that include specific provisions or restrictions on the use of inputs, such as fertilizers or fossil fuels, among others? What are the implications of these regulations on the three objectives?


19

Sectoral policies beyond agriculture

47. Policies for other sectors of the economy such as: industry, energy, infrastructure, housing, and

transports, can have an impact on agricultural productivity, climate change adaptation and mitigation. As

such, sectoral policies may create incentives and disincentives by for example affecting farmer’s incomes

or affecting availability, prices and cost of natural resources. In that sense, some sectoral policies could

potentially generate trade-offs between the three objectives. Box 6 helps the policy makers to assess

whether and how non-agricultural sectoral policies may affect climate change adaptation, mitigation, and

productivity of agriculture.

Box 6. Sectoral policies beyond agriculture - assessing policy effects

What are the effects of sectoral (forestry, industry, energy, infrastructure, housing, telecom and transports) and rural development policies on the three objectives?

Have policies promoted the supply of inputs, such as water and energy below their marginal cost? If yes, has this encouraged the enhanced use of these resources? What has been the intended or unintended impact of these policies in terms of productivity, adaptation and mitigation?

What are the effects of certain tax arrangements, beyond the agricultural sector, on agricultural productivity, climate change adaptation and mitigation?

Agricultural Policies

48. The central role of agricultural policies for the three objectives warrants a more detailed

discussion of various types of policy measures in agriculture that may impact the three objectives, namely

i) agricultural policies, ii) agricultural research and development, iii) extension and advisory services.

Agricultural support policies

49. Agricultural policies can impact the three objectives in synergetic or conflicting ways.

Agricultural support may affect land use or farmer incentives to adopt specific crops or production

measures. For instance, policy instruments that distort input and output markets reduce producers’

incentives to use production factors efficiently and can encourage the adoption of agricultural practices that

increase climate change vulnerability or GHG emissions. As stated by Lehtonen (2008) "policies coupled

to production may provide strong incentives to increase input use intensity of environmentally harmful

inputs, such as fertilizers or pesticides, or they may drive land allocation towards more intensive crops or

expand agriculture into sensitive areas, i.e. such incentives may reinforce environmental market failures”.

Moral hazard may be exacerbated by under-pricing insurance and affect the resilience of agricultural

production. Nevertheless, the impact of agri-environmental policies on production and productivity needs

to be better understood. Peltonen et al (2015) is a good example of a forward-looking study aiming at

identifying the impact of agri-environmental policies, namely the Finnish agri-environmental program

(AEP) on cereal yields and quality.

50. In contrast, depending on their design and under certain circumstances, policy instruments such

as agri-environmental payments, agricultural insurances, support to access credits and other financial

services, could encourage more sustainable or profitable investments, as well as the adoption of adaptation

and mitigation measures. Moreover, policies that facilitate access to financial services based on compliance

with environmental standards could also incentivize farmers to adopt agricultural practices with positive

effects in terms of adaptation and mitigation. However, if poorly designed, some agricultural support

policies may not be efficient or cost-effective and might have unintended effects on one or more of the

three objectives.


20

51. It is also important to consider whether some of the above mentioned policies create disincentives

for farmers to increase or sustain productivity levels. Effectiveness of these measures in increasing

productivity will depend on the objectives set to these instruments (such as social protection, poverty

reduction or economic growth). Furthermore, the explicit objective of the agricultural policies is not

always clear.

52. Policy makers should identify and assess the effects and interactions of various agricultural

support policy instruments with regard to the three objectives. Based on this assessment, policy makers

should concentrate on addressing the negative effects, through policy reform or further policy action. In

fact, policy failures should be removed first and then the remaining market failures should be addressed by

targeted policies (Lehtonen, 2008).

Box 7. Agricultural policies - assessing policy effects

What agricultural policy instruments are in place (e.g. tax incentives, income support measures, market price support, fertilizer subsidies, water and energy subsidies for irrigation, support for accessing insurance (crop or index) schemes or credits)?

What is the importance of these instruments (as reflected in budget allocation) compared to other public investments in the sector?

What is the explicit objective of these instruments? Who do they target? Has the effectiveness and impacts of these instruments been assessed? What are the visible or potential impacts of these instruments on the three objectives?

Have these instruments been effective in promoting increased productivity (in terms of crop responses and increased incomes)? If yes, what are the visible or expected implications (in the short term and the long term) for climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation?

Have measures such as environmental payments and insurance subsidies been effective in promoting the uptake of adaptation and mitigation measures? What is the visible or potential impact on productivity related objectives?

Has the implementation, reform or removal of certain agricultural support policy instruments resulted in an increase or decrease in productivity levels? If yes, in which way and how have they impacted agriculture adaptation or mitigation?

Research and Development

53. Research and development (R&D) activities, such as the generation and dissemination of high-

quality information and knowledge awareness on climate change and agriculture related trends, may help

prepare farmers to prevent or address climate impacts. R&D plays an essential role in the identification and

development of new technologies and processes of production. If agricultural R&D simultaneously

integrates productivity growth, climate change adaptation and mitigation objectives, it can contribute

towards achieving increased synergies. But if R&D prioritizes some objectives at the detriment of others,

or if farmers are exposed to asymmetric or incorrect information, this may result in trade-offs between

objectives.

54. Policy makers should identify the main trends in agricultural R&D to assess if and how the three

objectives are being prioritized and integrated into R&D programmes. This assessment can help identify

trade-offs between the three objectives and barriers to the integration of climate objectives into agricultural

R&D (including coordination, financial, knowledge infrastructure amongst other barriers).


21

Box 8. Agricultural R&D - Assessing policy effects

Are productivity, climate change adaptation and mitigation set as R&D priority areas? Does R&D integrate productivity, climate change adaptation and mitigation objectives?

Does R&D prioritize one or two of the three objectives? If yes, what are the visible or expected implications for the other objectives?

Are there mechanisms to increase collaboration between public, private, or international researchers with regard to integrating the three objectives?

Are R&D results available and accessible for farmers?

Are there any examples in which lack of coordination and cooperation between research institutions or limited access to information resulted in the provision of asymmetric or incorrect information? What are the visible or expected effects on the three objectives?

How does knowledge generation translate into (on the ground) increased uptake of productivity, adaptation and mitigation measures?

Capacity Building: Extension and Advisory Services

55. Extension and advisory services can play an important role in providing famers with training,

tools, information on key trends, as well as in promoting the adoption of available innovative synergetic

measures and technologies. Nevertheless, trade-offs across objectives may arise according to: the nature

and structure of these services, and the way in which objectives are integrated into these services; the lack

of coordination within and between institutions and stakeholders in charge of planning, funding,

implementing and monitoring and evaluation of extension and advisory services; amongst others.

Therefore, policy makers should assess the nature, structure and availability of extension and determine if

and how the three objectives are being integrated and prioritized in that domain.

Box 9. Extension & Advisory Services - assessing policy effects

What is the role of the public sector in providing advisory and extension services?

What are the main institutions and stakeholders involved in the provision of advisory services?

What is the explicit objective(s) of these services? Who do they target?

Are extension and advisory services widely available and used?

Do these services integrate the three objectives? What objectives do they prioritize? How?

If they prioritize one or more objectives over others, what are the visible and expected implications for the other objectives?

Have these services promoted the adoption of agricultural productivity improving technologies or practices? Which measures or practices? What are the visible or potential implications for adaptation and mitigation?

Have extension and advisory services promoted the adoption of climate change adaptation technologies or practices? Which measures or practices? What are the visible or potential implications for productivity and mitigation?

Have extension and advisory services promoted the adoption of certain climate change mitigation technologies or practices? Which measures or practices? What are the visible or potential implications for adaptation and productivity levels, or for both?


22

4.4.3 Examples of trade-offs between the three objectives

56. To identify and assess trade-offs resulting from policy impulses, countries should consider the

effects of policies on each objective, as well as the combination of effects.

57. Moreover, the choice of indicator is important in the assessment of policies impact on the three

objectives. Policies might affect different components of agricultural total factor productivity in

contradictory ways. For instance a policy can result in decreased agricultural labour productivity, and

simultaneously result in increased yields. Countries should assess the combination of effects to determine

whether the effects of policies are positive or negative for agricultural total factor productivity. The same

principle holds for assessing policy effects on climate change adaptation and mitigation. A policy may

promote a decrease of GHG emissions per unit of output or at the farm level. However, assessing if this

decrease is positive or negative for climate change mitigation should be done in consideration of total

emission reduction within and beyond the agricultural sector.

Example of non agricultural sectoral policies: subsidies for energy use for irrigation

58. Support to energy consumption is a common policy measure and frequently takes the form of tax

concesions and budgetary transfers. According to OECD (2015e), the OECD and large emerging

economies support both production and consumption of fossil fuels in the order of USD 160-200 billion

annually over the period 2010-14, part of which goes to the agricultural sector. Countries such as the

United States, China, Mexico, Spain, Pakistan and India rely significantly on grounwater irrigation

(OECD, 2015d) and, on ocasions, this activity is suppported by governments. For instance, in Mexico in

2011, more money was spent on subsidies to partly cover the cost of electricity for water pumping than on

improving irrigation infrastructure (OECD, 2013b). The energy subsity for irrigation amounted to USD

649 million in 2011, more than nine times the support to farmers investment in more efficient water

infrastruture provided the same year.

Effects on productivity

59. Subsidies for energy use for irrigation have direct positive effects on yields, via increased use of

irrigation, but the effects on TFP may be less clear when accounting for inefficient resource use

incentivised by the subsidy. In the short term, increased irrigation may allow farmers to respond to water

scarcity by increasing agricultural yields through increased pumping of groundwater. For instance, during

the drought year of 2009 in India, when the rainfall deficit was 33 percent and 66 percent in Punjab and

Haryana respectively, the reduction in irrigated paddy area was only 0.7 percent and 10 percent

respectively, thanks to intensive groundwater use supported by energy support policies (GoI, 2009). Thus,

short-term productivity was largely maintained, at the expense of increased reliance of scarce natural

resources.

60. From a long term perspective, energy subsidies for irrigation appear to have negative effects for

the three objectives, including productivity. Significantly increasing groundwater extraction is likely to

lower the groundwater table, and can be associated with negative environmental externalities, such as

stream depletion, land subsidence or water salinisation (OECD, 2015d). In north-western India, energy

subsidies for irrigation have resulted in an average decline of the groundwater table by 33 cm per year

(Rodell et all.,2009). In fact, 29% of the country´s groundwater assessment blocks were considered in a

semi-critical, critical or over-exploited state (UNESCO, 2014). The World Bank used evidence from the

Republic of Yemen and the MENA region to show that accelerated water depletion rates were associated

with energy mispricing (Commander et al. 2015). Consequently, once the groundwater resource is

depleted, the irrigated agricultural practices will observe a sharp drop in productivity.


23

Effects on adaptation

61. Energy subsidies for irrigation artificially promote the use of water intensive crops that are not

necessarily adapted to the country or region’s climatic conditions. By facilitating production in water

scarce areas, these policies increase vulnerability and create a barrier to adaptation to climate change. They

support production in areas in which alternative products and production systems should be explored

(OECD, 2015; Anita Wreford, Coherent Policies for Climate Smart Agriculture).

62. On occasion, energy subsidies have also mistakenly been promoted as an adaptation measure

given that in the short term, they might help farmers respond to water scarcity. However, as explained

above, these policies promote unsustainable resource use and thus, in the long term they may decrease the

adaptive capacity of the agricultural sector.

Effects on mitigation

63. By lowering the end-user price, energy subsidies for irrigation generally encourage wasteful

consumption of energy and consequent lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, in the

short term the main trade-off resulting from this policy is between increased agricultural output on the one

hand and increased GHG emissions on the other hand.

Synergies and trade-offs between the objectives

64. Figure 3 illustrates the potential effects of energy subsidies for irrigation in the short and long

term.

65. The adverse effects of energy subsidies for irrigation suggest a need for reforming and phasing

out such support policies. Potential reforms include monitoring and measuring, adequately pricing (or in

another way controlling) water and electricity consumption, promoting less water intensive practices and

crops, and selecting crops based on aspects such as long term resilience of agricultural systems and

competitiveness. More generally, the removal of environmentally harmful subsidies4 should be

complemented by management measures to rationalise long term use and mitigate the potential

environmental externalities associated with groundwater use (OECD, 2015d). These include investing in

information and monitoring of water use for irrigation, and employing a “tripod”combination of regulatory,

economic and collective approaches (OECD, 2015d).

4 EHS are policies encouraging activities or practices that are deemed harmful to the environment in the

sense that they aggravate environmental externalities.


24

Figure 4. Short and long term potential intended and unintended effects of energy subsidies for irrigation

Example of agricultural policies: subsidized insurance

66. In recent years, OECD and non-OECD countries have put in place policies aimed at increasing

farmers’ access to insurance schemes with one or more of the following objectives: increasing agricultural

investments, reducing poverty, and addressing external shocks (including climate related risks and natural

disasters). In the United States for instance, the Federal Crop Insurance Program has grown significantly

over the past 20 years while premium subsidies grew from $322 million in 1992 to nearly $7 billion in

2012, accounting for inflation (USDA, 2014). Policies to promote enrolment in agricultural insurance

schemes include insurance premium subsidies, cash grants, and mandatory participation in insurance

schemes to access credits or other benefits. Anton et al. (2012) confirmed that that the gain for the farmer

from lower risk is generally smaller than the budgetary cost of the measure.


67. Regarding the potential effects on productivity, agricultural insurance has the potential to

promote agricultural investments and contribute to achieving higher productivity and poverty reduction. In

developing countries, uninsured risk may keep poor households in a vicious circle of poverty, holding them

back from adopting technologies that are high return but often considered high-risk (Rosenzweig and

Binswanger 1993). Various studies have linked risk avoidance to limited fertilizer use, which in turn is

seen as an important constraint for agricultural productivity among poor farmers of developing countries

(Christiaensen and Demery, 2007). The results of studies carried out in Ghana (Karlan et al, 2013) and

Ethiopia (Dercon and Christiaensen, 2011) indicate that insurance can have a significant impact on

increased use of fertilizers and positive impacts on yields and revenues.

68. Weber et al. (2015) analysed the effects of Federal Crop Insurance in the US on farming practices

using 2000-2013 panel data (since the Agricultural Risk Protection act was reinforced) and did not find any

impact of the insurance programme on the way farmers chose to use their land, establish their crop mix or

apply fertilisers and chemicals.


25

69. Nevertheless, in the case of subsidized crop insurance premium the effect on productivity might

also be negative if for example, subsidizing risk leads to moral hazard. For instance, Smith and Goodwin

(1996) evidenced that wheat growers in Kansas, United States who purchased crop insurance tend to use

less fertilizer and chemicals than those that did not insure. Insurance companies are not in a position to

verify if lower yields have been the result of farmers’ negligence (moral hazard) or if they have been the

result of an external shock. Alternatives to crop insurance such as index insurance might be more effective

in promoting agricultural investments and long-term adaptation. According to Karlan et al (2013), using

index insurance rather than crop insurance helps to eliminate moral hazard and adverse selection because

pay-outs depend only on observable realizations. Index insurance programs for smallholders are currently

implemented in countries such as India, Ethiopia and Senegal. Case studies carried out by Hansen et al.

(2015) in these countries, suggest that these schemes appear to unlock opportunities for farmers to increase

incomes, protect their assets, increase their access to services such as credit, or increase food security.


75. In addition, insurance schemes may have adverse effects for long-term adaptation. For instance,

over-subsidised insurance can incentivise farmers to maintain practices or crops that are poorly adapted to

a changing climate. Public support for insurance schemes (and for ex post payments) may reduce the

incentive to diversify farm production away from more existing crops and practices that may be climate

sensitive, therefore reducing farmer’s resilience (Anton et al., 2012). In addition, preferential subsidy rates

for certain crops can also reduce incentives for crop diversification or multi-cropping. Increased yields and

consequent increased profitability in the short term are not always equated to increased adaptive capacity

of agricultural systems in the long term. If, for example, preferential subsidy rates are given to water

intensive crops in already water scarce areas, the policy will promote increased yields of such a crop in the

short term, while potentially exacerbating water scarcity and increasing vulnerability of farmers and crops

in the long term. Annan and Schlenker (2014) provide some evidence that highly subsidized crop insurance

program may expose farmers to mal-adapting behaviour regarding extreme heat by dis-incentivising them

from engaging in possible adaptation strategies to cope with extreme heat thereby exacerbating potential

losses. Climate change may amplify the problem as it will increase the frequency of extremely hot

temperatures.


70. The impact of this policy on GHG emissions is unclear. Insurance could unintentionally generate

an increase in GHG emissions if farmers switch to crops that are more climate sensitive and need more

water and fertilizer input. In such a case, the instrument may yield trade-offs between productivity or

adaptation on the hand and mitigation on the other hand.


71. Figure 5 illustrates the potential intended and unitended effects of crop insurance.

72. Given the ambiguities that crop insurance policies may have on the three objectives, it is

important for countries to gather the evidence from current policies that may affect the signals provided to

farmers. OECD (2011) investigated under which conditions public policies should support insurance

subsidies and concluded that current system go beyond correcting potential insurance market failures.


26

Figure 5. Potential intended and unintended effects of crop insurance

Example of agricultural policies: fertilizer subsidies

73. Input subsidies are used extensively around the world, in particular in developing countries

driven by the following objectives: increasing production; achieving food security; or reducing poverty.

For many African countries, input subsidies have been a major component of agricultural policy since their

independence. For example, in 2011 ten African governments spent roughly USD 1 billion annually on

input subsidy programs; amounting to 28.6% of their public expenditures on agriculture (Jayne & Rashid,

2013). Subsidies provided on inputs, and more specifically on fertilisers, is prefaced on the belief that

increased agricultural production that could reduce poverty and improve food security has been stymied by

the inability of many farmers to buy the inputs and technology that are known to be effective (Wiggins and

Brooks, 2010).

74. Importantly, such policies may also pose a large burden on government budgets and may have

significant adverse effects on the economy. According to Jayne and Rashid (2013), the cost of input

subsidies can outweigh their benefits and divert public expenditure from more efficient investments. Based

on studies from India, Malawi and Sri Lanka, Wiggins and Brooks (2010) suggest that input subsidies,

despite promoting input use over the short to medium term, had questionable lasting effects and have not

always been effective in addressing market failures, such as compensating for high costs of transport;

offsetting high costs of supplying inputs when markets have low volumes and economies of scale in

logistics cannot be achieved; compensating for the lack, or inadequacy, of financial markets and making

inputs accessible for the poorest farmers. These support policies involve risks such as potential distortion

of the relative costs of factors, leading to inefficient allocation of inputs, leakages such as landlords raising

land rents and appropriating the value of the subsidy, or different types of corruption; and repressed

development of private supply of inputs.


27


75. According to Todaro and Smith (2011), the increasing use of fertilizers offer enormous potential

for raising agricultural output in developing nations and up to date it has been highly effective in doing so,

particularly in Asia. Input subsidy programmes are also put forward as mechanisms to substitute local

production for imports and reduce dependence on world markets for food commodities. This is only valid,

however, in situations where a limiting production factor is a lack of fertilizers, giving that other necessary

production factors such as adequate quality and quantity of soil and water are in place. In developed

countries, stimulating additional use of fertilizers, may not have a positive effect of increased productivity.

If farmers overuse fertilizers, this may negatively affect agricultural productivity by incentivising

inefficient use of fertiliser (OECD, 2015i).

76. Recently the debate has surpassed the issues of adoption and adequate utilization and also

focused on crop response rates or in other words on the rate at which fertilizers are able to increase yields.

Jayne and Rashid (2013) argue that recent estimates using farm panel survey data in sub-Saharan Africa

(SSA) and Asia, consistently find relatively low crop responses, indicating marginal profitability or in

some cases unprofitability of fertilizer use. Marenya and Barrett (2009) claim that marginal yield response

to nitrogen application is low on carbon deficient soils. Other studies argue that farmers might be unable to

benefit from the potential benefits of improved seeds if these are grown on degraded soils, which are

nonresponsive to fertilizer application (Giller et al. 2006; Tittonnell et al. 2007). Case studies carried out in

Ethiopia (Dercon and Christiansen, 2011; Hill and Tsehaye 2014) evidence that fertilizer returns are high

when rainfall is favourable and negative when rainfall is too low or too high. The above studies indicate

that crop response rates might vary significantly under different circumstances. Therefore, considering soil

fertility, water scarcity and unavailable water control or irrigation, seems essential when assessing the

effectiveness of fertilizer use and consequently of input subsidy programs.


77. The effects of input subsidies may also be exacerbated due to the changing climate. Climate

change is likely to alter the indirect crop response. Threats posed by environmental degradation -

deforestation, soil degradation, salinization of irrigated lands, water scarcity and contamination - are

increasing due to climate change and the consequent intensification of extreme events (CAN, 2009). It is

likely that without correcting for climate effects, stimulating the use of fertilizers might not be sufficient to

adapt agriculture to climate change.


78. It is likely that, because of fertilizer subsidies, GHG emissions per unit of output increase both

within the production process of fertilizers and due to their increased application. Moreover, facilitating

access to fertilizers does not necesssarily guarantee their adequate use.


79. Figure 6 illustrates the potential intended and unintended effects of input subsidies under various

conditions combining three main aspects: input use; water availability and control; and soil quality. It is

important to note that this figure does not evidence all possible aspects, conditions or effects. OECD

(2015i) stresses that overall input subsidies should be reduced with a view to eventual elimination.


28

Figure 6. Potential intended and unintended effects of input subsidies

4.5 Part IV. Assessing how on the ground initiatives can inform policy design and implementation

80. Many on-the-ground initiatives that focus on promoting alternative production systems have

been developed to exploit synergies between agricultural productivity, climate change adaptation and

mitigation related objectives. Generally, these initiatives integrate and promote specific production and

management practices such as integrated cropland and livestock management, agro-forestry practices and

restoration of degraded lands. Some specific examples of land management practices and their potential

effects on the three objectives are included in Appendix 1.

81. On-the-ground initiatives aiming at synergies between the three pilars rarely achieve synergies

across all geographic locations. The consequences, and therefore the success of synergetic initiatives

depend, among other factors, on local conditions, therefore describing measures generically as synergetic

should be done with caution. Environmental, climate, water and soil conditions determine the effectiveness

of production systems and how they affect the triple objectives. For example, policies to stimulate no-till or

reduced till cropping can improve land productivity through increased soil moisture capture. Additionally,

soil conservation practices seem to have lower labour requirements (OECD, 2015g) and are therefore

likely to only have a positive impact on the three objectives in dry areas. Inversely, if policies target an

increase of cover crops, that could be beneficial as these crop store carbon in soils, they may in some cases

have negative effects on productivity, for instance, if the cover crops compete for water with cash crops in

water stressed areas. A whole range of technical, social, cultural and financial conditions could also

hamper or facilitate the effective development and adoption of adequate measures.

82. The success of on-the-ground initiatives also depends on the scale of implementation and

assessment. For instance, improved grassland management can sequester carbon and increase soil fertility

by increasing the share of leguminous crops, which has a positive impact on yields; however, if the

increased grassland productivity results in higher grazing intensity, greenhouse gas emissions from

livestock may well increase (Ghahramani and Moore, 2015). Therefore, while the potential for on-the-


29

ground synergies between the three objectives in agricultural systems should be recognised and in principle

stimulated, the generalisation of the adequacy of practices in a wider context should be done with care.

83. Looking at bottom-up approaches, however, might still be useful to inform policy design and

implementation. Policy makers should identify on the ground initiatives and assess the synergies or trade-

offs they involve, as well as the factor(s) that stimulate or impede the adoption of certain practices. Such an

exercise can inform policy design and implementation. Different on the ground initiatives promote the

uptake of different agricultural production methods and practices, which in turn involve different

interactions between productivity, adaptation and mitigation and at different levels (farm, landscape,

national, international). In certain cases, a (reverse) chain analysis - from identified initiatives and practices

to the ‘impulses’ that led to their adoption could contribute towards: increasing knowledge of what is

working and not working on the ground; tracing the causal link between on the on the ground performance

and policy intervention; directing and re-directing public investments in a more efficient manner; and

identifying areas for policy reform or further policy action. It is important to note here that the adoption of

practices may result from market impulses rather than from a policy impulse or a specific on the ground

initiative.

Box 10. Identifying and assessing on the ground initiatives

What are the examples of on the ground initiatives that aim at promoting synergies between the three objectives?

What is the explicit objective(s) of such initiatives?

Who is responsible for the funding, implementation, monitoring and evaluation these interventions? Is the public sector involved?

How are agricultural productivity, adaptation and mitigation measured within the on the ground initiative?

Considering the three objectives and locally specific conditions what visible or potential synergies and trade-offs do these initiatives and practices involve at different implementation levels (farm, landscape, national, international)?

Can on the ground performance (in terms of uptake and impacts of production and productivity measures) be traced- back to policy?

How could these initiatives and their impacts inform public policy design?

Are there any data collection, monitoring and evaluation efforts to identify best practices and lessons learned at a farm and landscape level? Is this knowledge informing and directing future policy design?


30

REFERENCES

Annan F. and W. Schlenker Federal Crop Insurance and the Disincentives to Adapt to Extreme Heat.

Working paper accessed on 3.04.2015 https://www.aeaweb.org.

Antón, J. et al. (2012), “A Comparative Study of Risk Management in Agriculture under Climate Change”,

OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 58, OECD Publishing.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k94d6fx5bd8-en

Beddington, J. et al. (2012a), "Achieving Food Security in the Face of Climate Change: Final report from

the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change. CGIAR Research Program on

Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)", Copenhagen, Denmark. Available

online at: www.ccafs.cgiar.org/commission.

Beddington, J.R. et al. (2012b), "What Next for Agriculture After Durban?", Science, 335 (6066), 289-90.

Biesbroek, G.R., Swart, R.J. & van der Knaap, W. G.M. (2009), “The Mitigation-Adaptation Dichotomy

and the Role of Spatial Planning’’. Habitat Int., 33, 230-237.

Bryan, E. et al. (2011), "Agricultural Land Management: Capturing Synergies between Climate Change

Adaptation, Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Agricultural Productivity. Insights from Kenya",

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC.

Business Insurance (2013) -

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20130830/NEWS09/130839992/pakistan-floods-cause-

estimated-1-9-billion-in-losses-to-agriculture-sector

Christiaensen, L., Demery, L., 2007. Down to earth: agriculture and poverty reduction in Africa. Directions

in Development. World Bank, Washington D.C

Commander, S. et al. (2015). Estimating the Size of External Effects of Energ Subsidies in Transport and

Agriculture. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. World Bank.

Dercon, Stefan and Christiaensen, Luc. Consumption risk, technology adoption and poverty traps:

Evidence from Ethiopia. Journal of Development Economics 96. 2011

Duguma, L.A. et al. (2014), "A Systematic Analysis of Enabling Conditions for Synergy between Climate

Change Mitigation and Adaptation Measures in Developing Countries", Environmental Science &

Policy, 42, 138-48.

FAO (2008). The State of Food and Agriculture in Asia and the Pacific Region 2008. Regional Office for

Asia and the Pacific. FAO, Bangkok. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/ai411e/ai411e00.pdf

FAO (2012), "Greening the Economy with Climate-Smart Agriculture", Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 52p.


31

FAO (2010), ‘Climate-Smart Agriculture’: Policies, Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation

and Mitigation. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1881e/i1881e00.htm (visited March 15, 2013).

FAO (2010b). Bionergy and Food security. The BEFS analysis for Thailand. FAO, Rome.

FAO (2009), "How to feed the world in 2050. Issues Brief for the High-level forum on How to Feed the

World in 2050", Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Fargione, Joseph et al. (2008). Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt. Science 319.American

Association of the Advancement of Science.

Giller et al. 2006. Resource use dynamics and interactions in the tropics: Scaling up in space and time.

Agric. Syst. 88.

Ghahramani, A. and A.D. Moore (2015), "Systemic Adaptations to Climate Change in Southern Australian

Grasslands and Livestock: Production, Profitability, Methane Emission and Ecosystem Function",

Agricultural Systems, 133 (0), 158-66.

Gornall, J. et al. (2010), "Implications of Climate Change for Agricultural Productivity in the Early

Twenty-First Century", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365

(1554), 2973-89.

GoI. 2009. Minutes of the meeting of the crop weather watch group held on 28.08.2009. Delhi, Ministry of

Agriculture, Government of India. http://agricoop.nic.in/ncfcweather/ncfcasAug-28-2009.pdf

Harvey, C.A. et al. (2014), "Climate-Smart Landscapes: Opportunities and Challenges for Integrating

Adaptation and Mitigation in Tropical Agriculture", Conservation Letters, 7 (2), 77-90.

Hove, H. (2011), "Integrating Mitigation and Adaptation in the Agriculture Sector", in IISD Food Security

and Climate Change Initiative (ed.), International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD),

Winnepeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Karlan et al. Agricultural Decision After Relaxing Credit and Risk Constraints. 2013.

Ignaciuk, A. and D. Mason-D'Croz (2014), "Modelling Adaptation to Climate Change in Agriculture",

OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 70, OECD Publishing.

Ignaciuk, A. (2015), “The Role of Public Policies in Promoting Adaptation”. OECD Food, Agriculture and

Fisheries Papers, No. 72, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Hansen, G. et (2015). Scaling up index insurance for smallholder farmers: Recent evidence and insights.

CCAFS Report No. 14 Copenhagen: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and

Food Security (CCAFS). Available online at: www.ccafs.cgiar.org

Hill, Ruth; Tsehaye, Eyasu. 2014. Ethiopia - Poverty assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/01/24047887/ethiopia-poverty-assessment

IFPRI (2011) “The political economy of agricultural policy reform in India : fertilizers and electricity for

irrigation”, IFPRI research monograph, 2011.

IPCC (2007), "IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007", Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate.


32

IPCC (2014), "IPCC Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2014", Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate.

Ts. Jayne, Shahidur Rashid. Input Subsidy Programs in Sub- Saharan Africa: a Synthesis of Recent

Evidence. Agricultural Economics. November, 2013.

Klein, R.J.T. et al. (2007), "Inter-relationships between Adaptation and Mitigation", in Parry, M.L. et al.

(eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working

Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 745-77.

Lehton, H. (2008) Resolving the conflict between environmental damage and agricultural viability on less

favoured areas. MTT Agrifood Research Finland/Economic Research, Principal Research Scientist,

Helsinki,

Locatelli, B. (2011), "Synergies between Adaptation and Mitigation in a nutshell", Centre for International

Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.

Marenya and Barrett (2009). State-conditional Fertilizer Yield Response on Western Kenyan Farms.

American Journal of Agricultural economics.

Mitchell, Donald (2008). A note on Rising Food Prices. Policy Research Working Paper 4682. The World

Bank Development Prospects. World Bank.

Pacheco, P., L. Putzel, K. Obidzinski and G. Schoneveld (2012), “REDD+ and the Global Economy:

Competing Forces and Policy Options. Pages 51–66 in A. Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, W.D. Sunderlin

& L.V. Verchot, editors. Analysing REDD+: challenges and choices.’’ CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

OECD-IEA-ITF-NEA (2015), “Aligning policies for the transition to a low-carbon economy' (APT)”.

Draft report- OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD (2008). Rising Food Prices, Causes and Consequences, OECD, Paris.

OECD (2011), Managing Risk in Agriculture: Policy Assessment and design, OECD, Paris.

OECD-FAO (2012). Agricultural Outlook 2012. Paris: OECD and Rome: FAO

OECD (2013a). Database on Biofuel Policies. OECD, Paris.

OECD (2013b) Environmental Performance Reviews, Mexico. OECD, Paris.

OECD (2014a), “Agricultural Total Factor Productivity and the Environment – review of methodological

approaches: work in progress” COM/TAD/CA/ENV/EPOC(2014)41

OECD (2014b), “Innovation for agricultural productivity and sustainability: Review of Canadian policies”

TAD/CA/APM/WP(2014)24/REV2

OECD (2014c), “Innovation for agricultural productivity and sustainability: Review of Brazilian policies”

TAD/CA/APM/WP(2014)23/FINAL

OECD (2014d), Green Growth Indicators for Agriculture: A Preliminary Assessment, OECD Green

Growth Studies, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264223202-en

http://www2.oecd.org/oecdinfo/info.aspx?app=OLIScoteEN&Ref=COM/TAD/CA/ENV/EPOC(2014)41

http://www2.oecd.org/oecdinfo/info.aspx?app=OLIScoteEN&Ref=TAD/CA/APM/WP(2014)24/REV2

http://www2.oecd.org/oecdinfo/info.aspx?app=OLIScoteEN&Ref=TAD/CA/APM/WP(2014)23/FINAL


33

OECD (2015a) “Analysing policies to improve agricultural productivity growth, sustainably: Revised

Framework” (TAD/CA/APM/WP(2014)3/REV1)

OECD (2015b), “OECD food and agriculture reviews- innovation for agricultural productivity and

sustainability in the Netherlands”, TAD/CA/APM/WP(2015)10/FINAL

OECD (2015d), “Drying wells Drying Wells, Rising Stakes: Towards Sustainable Agricultural

Groundwater Use” OECD Publishing, Paris.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264238701-2-en

OECD (2015e), “OECD Companion to the Inventory of Support Measures for Fossil Fuels 2015”, OECD,

Paris.

OECD (2015f), “Better Policies for Development 2015: Policy Coherence and Green Growth”, OECD

Publishing, Paris.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264236813-en

OECD (2015g), “The impact of various farm management practices on resource efficiency and

productivity” COM/TAD/CA/ENV/EPOC(2015)5/Rev1

OECD (2015h), “Innovation for agricultural productivity and sustainability: Review of Australian policies”

(TAD/CA/APM/WP(2014)22/FINAL)

OECD (2015i), “Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2015” OECD Publishing, Paris.

Peltonen-Sainio et al. (2015). Static yields and quality issues: Is the agri- environment program the primary

driver. Ambio. 44(6):544-56. doi: 10.1007/s13280-015-0637-9.

Rosenzweig, M., Binswanger, H., 1993. Wealth, weather risk and the composition and profitability of

agricultural investments. Econ. J.

Salvatore Di Falco et al. (2013) Crop Insurance as aStrategy for Adapting to Climate Change. Journal of

Agricultural Economics.

Shafer, M., D. Ojima, J. M. Antle, D. Kluck, R. A. McPherson, S. Petersen, B. Scanlon, and K. Sherman,

2014: Ch. 19: Great Plains. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National

Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global

Change Research Program, 441-461. Doi:10.7930/J0D798BC

Smith and Goodwin (2010). Public and Private Roles in Providing Agricultural Insurance in the United

States, in Jeffrey Brown (editor), Private and public roles in insurance. AEI Press. Washington D.C

Smith and Goodwin (1996). “Multiple Peril Crop Insurance, Moral Hazard and Agricultural Chemical

Use”. American Journal Of Agricultural Economics 79.(2): 42843

Searchinger T. (2008) The impacts of biofuels on greenhouse gases: how land use change alters the

equation. Economic Policy Program Policy Brief. Washington, DC: The German Marshall Fund of

the United States. http://www.gmfus.org/archives/the-impacts-of-biofuels-on-greenhouse-gases-

how-land-use-change-alters-the-equation/)

Schaffnit-Chatterjee, C. and B. Kahn (2011), "Mitigating climate change through agriculture. An untapped

potential", in Research, D.B. (ed.), Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 32.

http://www2.oecd.org/oecdinfo/info.aspx?app=OLIScoteEN&Ref=TAD/CA/APM/WP(2014)3/REV1


http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264238701-2-en

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264236813-en


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25663562

http://www.gmfus.org/archives/the-impacts-of-biofuels-on-greenhouse-gases-how-land-use-change-alters-the-equation/

http://www.gmfus.org/archives/the-impacts-of-biofuels-on-greenhouse-gases-how-land-use-change-alters-the-equation/


34

Steenwerth, K. et al. (2014), "Climate-smart agriculture global research agenda: scientific basis for action",

Agriculture & Food Security, 3 (1), 11.

Timilsina et al. (2012). The Impacts of biofuels on land-use change and food supply: A global CGE

assessment. Agricultural Economics 43. International Association of Agricultural Economics.

Tittonnell et al. (2007).Nutrient use efficiencies and crop response to N-P and manure applications in

Zimbabwean soils: Exploring management strategies across soil fertility gradients. Field Crop Res.

100.

Todaro, M. and Smith, Stephen. “Economic Development”. Eleventh Edition, Addison-Wesley. 2011.

Tol, R.S.J. (2005), “Mitigation and Adaptation: Trade-offs in Substance and Methods’’. Environ. Sci.

Policy 8 (6) 572–578, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2005.06.011.

Tubiello, F.N. et al. (2014), "Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Emissions by Sources and

Removals by Sinks. 1990 – 2011 Analysis", Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (FAO), Rome, 89p.

UNESCO (2014). The United Nations World Water Development Report- N. 5. 2014: Water and Energy:

Volume 1. UNESCO.

USNCA (2014), “U.S. National Climate Assessment, 2014” - http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

USEPA (2013), Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases: 2010-2030.

USDA O’Donoghue, E.J (2014)The Effects of Premium Subsidies on Demand for Crop Insurance.

Verchot, L.V., M. Noordwijk, S. Kandji et al. (2007), “Climate Change: Linking Adaptation and

Mitigation through Agroforestry.’’ Mitig. Adap. Strat. Global Change, 12, 901-918.

Wiggins, S.; Brooks, J. (2010). The Use of Input Subsidies in Developing Countries. OECD.Paris

Wheeler, T. and J. Von Braun (2013), ''Climate Change Impacts on Global Food Security" Science, 341

(6145/0, 508-13).


35

APPENDIX 1

IMPACTS OF A SELECTION OF LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON PRODUCTIVITY,

CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION

Table 3 summarises the impacts of some land management practices on farm productivity, climate

adaptation, and GHG mitigation. Practices were sourced from Bryan et al. (2011) and should not be seen

as an exhaustive list of potential synergetic practices. The extent of the impacts on productivity, climate

adaptation and greenhouse gas mitigation will depend largely on local conditions. Effects are therefore

defined qualitatively rather than quantitatively.


36

Table 3. Examples of land management practices, and their impacts on productivity, climate change adaptation, and greenhouse gas mitigation (Adapted from: Bryan et al., 2011)

Examples

management

practice

Productivity impacts Climate adaptation

benefits

Greenhouse gas

mitigation potential

Cropland management

Improved crop

varieties or types

(early-maturing,

drought resistant,

etc.)

Increased crop yield and

reduced yield variability

Increased resilience

against climate change,

particularly increases in

climate variability

(prolonged periods of

drought, seasonal shifts in

rainfall, and the like)

Improved varieties can

increase soil carbon

storage

Changing

planting dates

Reduced likelihood of

crop failure

Maintained production

under changing rainfall

patterns, such as changes

in the timing of rains or

erratic rainfall patterns

Unknown, although

higher yields are likely to

increase soil carbon

Improved

crop/fallow

rotation/rotation

with legumes

Increased soil fertility and

yields over the medium to

long term due to nitrogen

fixing in soils;

Short-term losses due to

reduced cropping intensity

Improved soil fertility and

water holding capacity

increases resilience to

climate change

High mitigation potential,

particularly crop rotation

with legumes

Use of cover crops Increased yields due to

erosion control and

reduced nutrient leaching;

Potential trade-off if cover

crops replace grazing area

in mixed crop–livestock

systems


water holding capacity


climate change

High mitigation potential

through increased soil

carbon sequestration

Appropriate use

of fertilizer and

manure

Higher yields due to

appropriate use of

fertilizer/manure

Improved productivity


climate change;

Potential greater yield

variability with frequent

droughts

High mitigation potential,

particularly where

fertilizer has been

underutilized, such as in

sub-Saharan Africa

Incorporation of

crop residues


improved soil fertility and

water retention in soils;

Trade-offs exist if crop

residues would have

otherwise been used as

animal feed


water-holding capacity


climate change





37

Examples

management

practice


benefits

Greenhouse gas


Reduced or zero

tillage

Increased yields over the

long term due to greater

water-holding capacity of

soils; limited impacts in

the short term;

Potential trade-offs in

terms of weed

management and potential

waterlogging


water-holding capacity


climate change

Some mitigation potential

through reduced soil

carbon losses

Agroforestry Uncertain impacts on

yields: Yields could

increase on adjacent

cropland due to improved

rainwater management

and reduced erosion;

Potential reduced yields if

smaller crops compete

with trees for light, water

and soil nutrients

Increased resilience to

climate change due to

improved soil conditions

and water management;

Benefits in terms of

livelihood diversification




Soil and water management

Irrigation and

water harvesting

Higher yields, greater

intensity of land use

Reduced production

variability and greater

climate resilience when

systems are well designed

and maintained

Low to high depending on

whether irrigation is

energy intensive or not

Bunds Higher yields due to

increased soil moisture;

Potentially lower yields

during periods of high

rainfall

Reduced yield variability

in dry areas; potential

increase in production loss

due to heavy rains if

bunds are constructed to

retain moisture

Positive mitigation

benefits minus soil carbon

losses due to construction

of bunds

Terraces Higher yields due to

increased soil moisture

and reduced erosion;

Potential to displace some

cropland


under climate change due

to better soil quality and

rainwater management

Positive mitigation

benefits minus soil carbon


of terraces

Mulching or trash

lines

Increased yields due to

greater water retention in

soils


under drier conditions due

to greater moisture

retention

Positive mitigation

benefits

Grass strips Increased yields due to

reduced runoff and soil

erosion

Reduced variability due to

reduced soil and water

erosion

Positive mitigation

benefits


38

Examples

management

practice


benefits

Greenhouse gas


Ridge and furrow Increased yields due to

greater soil moisture


in dry areas;

Possible production losses

with heavy rains

Positive mitigation

benefits minus initial


of ridges and furrows

Diversion ditches Increased yields due to

drainage of agricultural

lands in areas where

flooding is problematic


under heavy rainfall

conditions due to

improved water

management

Positive mitigation

benefits through improved

productivity and hence

increased soil carbon

Management of livestock or grazing land

Diversify, change,

or supplement

livestock feeds

Higher livestock yields

due to improved diets

Increased climate

resilience due to

diversified sources of feed


because improved feeding

practices can reduce

methane emissions

Destocking Potential increases per

unit of livestock;

Total production may

decline in the short term

Lower variability over the

long term, particularly

when forage availability is

a key factor in livestock

output


because reduced livestock

numbers lead to reduced

methane emissions

Rotational

grazing


greater forage availability

and quality;

Potential short-term trade-

off in terms of numbers of

livestock supported

Increased forage

availability over the long

term, providing greater

climate resilience

Positive mitigation

potential due to increased

carbon accrual on

optimally grazed lands

Improved breeds

and species

Increased productivity per

animal for the resources

available

Increased resilience of

improved species or

breeds to withstand

increasing climate

extremes

Varies, depending on the

breeds or species being

traded

Restoring degraded lands

Revegetation Improved yields over the

medium to long run;

improved yields on

adjacent cropland due to


erosion

Reduced variability due to


erosion


Applying nutrient

amendments

Improved yields over the

medium to long run

No known benefits for

adaptation



39

APPENDIX 2

SUGGESTED INDICATORS

Drivers - Trends in agricultural productivity and climate change vulnerabilities and risks

Share of agriculture in the use of land and water.

Variability of incomes and yields as a result of climate change (modelling studies).

Presence and frequency of droughts, floods, water stress.

Productivity growth: Growth rates in yields, Labour and Total Factor Productivity (TFP) growth in primary agriculture.

OECD Agri-Environmental Indicators: Greenhouse gas emissions, change in nitrogen and phosphate balances, trends in fertilizer availability and use, change in pesticides sales, change in agricultural land use, total abstraction of water for agriculture (surface water and groundwater, agricultural water productivity or water stress ratio, change in water withdrawal, share of land with erosion risk. [http://www.oecd.org/tad/sustainableagriculture/agri-environmentalindicators.htm].

FAO Agri-Environmental Indicators: [http://faostat3.fao.org/faostatgateway/ go/to/download/E/*/E].

OECD Green Growth Indicators: [http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/data/oecd-environment-statistics/green-growth-indicators_data-00665-en?isPartOf=/content/datacollection/env-data-en].

EUROSTAT Greenhouse gas emissions by industries and households:[http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_industries_and_households].

European Environment Agency: http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate/indicators#c10=&c5=all&c7=all&c13=20&b_start=0

EU CAP Context Indicators: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-indicators/context/2014/indicator-table_en.pdf

EU Rural Development Indicators : http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/statistics/rural-development/2013/indicators_en.pdf

Part II of the framework - Institutions

Presence of national plans or political statements prioritizing the three objectives.

Lead institution(s) identified.

Roles and responsibilities of institutions mapped using tools such as Net-Map (IFPRI)http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/os09netmap.pdf

Ex-ante evaluation (of institutional coordination and coherence) report.

Presence of policy reviews focused on identification institutional barriers.

Coordination mechanisms established.

Stakeholders involved in national climate change assessments and policy consultation.

Identified funds: budget lines for the three objectives within and outside of the agricultural sector.

Part III of the framework – Policies

OECD Effective tax rates on energy use: [http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxingenergyuse.htm]

Inventory of estimated budgetary support and tax expenditures for fossil fuels 2013: [http://www.oecd.org/publications/inventory-of-estimated-budgetary-support-and-tax-expenditures-for-fossil-fuels-2013-9789264187610-en.htm]

OECD-Environmentally related taxes (share of GDP): [http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/data/oecd-environment-statistics/green-growth-indicators_data-00665-en?isPartOf=/content/datacollection/env-data-en]

No. and type of (agricultural) insurance instruments promoted and share of farmers with access to insurance.

Share of farmers adjusting production practices as a result of accessing financial services (if available).

Proportion of the total surface area insured by crop type

Government expenditures on agricultural related insurances

Presence and nature of regulations on natural resources and the use of fertilizers

Presence and nature of regulatory instruments on emissions such as e.g. carbon pricing, emissions trading

Investment in rural/agricultural infrastructure (standards related to future climate)

OECD and World Bank: indicators of availability of physical infrastructure: road density, railway density, container port traffic intensity.


40

WEF GCI: Indicator of quality of transport Infrastructure

Within the agricultural polices

OECD Producer Support Estimate (PSE) as a % of farm receipts including: Most distorting support; support with environmental constraints; environmentally harmful subsidies.

OECD Composition of total support to agriculture (TSE) as a % of GDP including: Most distorting support; support to innovation enhancing service; support to infrastructure services: [http://www.oecd.org/agriculture/agriculturalpolicies/producerandconsumersupportestimatesdatabase.htm].

OECD Fertilizers and biofuels support policies database: [http://www.oecd.org/tad/agricultural-policies/support-policies-fertilisers-biofuels.htm].

Trends in public and private expenditures on agriculture R&D in areas such as:

o Development of climate change and disaster risk reduction methodologies

o Tools to map multiple-risk and vulnerability (climate, pest, disease) scenarios at different spatial scales

o Measurement of GHG emissions within the agricultural sector/ measurement of reduction on emission levels

o Development and implementation of weather forecasting, hydrological monitoring and early warning systems linked to the agricultural sector

o Development of new technologies and investments (biotechnology, nanotechnology, IT, precision techniques, renewable energies, biogas, others) and assessment of their effectiveness in terms of productivity, adaptation and mitigation.

o Development of an inventory of available and appropriate technologies and options which involve synergies between productivity, mitigation and adaptation

o Development of assessments to identify the technology gap: the gap between the existing appropriate technology and technology/options adopted by farmers OECD data on R&D expenditures: [http://www.oecd.org/statistics/]; ASTI data: [http://www.asti.cgiar.org/data/].

R&D expenditure on climate change issues as per cent of agricultural expenditure on agricultural R&D. ASTI data: [http://www.asti.cgiar.org/data/].

Financial support to research centres that work on the agricultural sector and climate change.

Existence of national assessment of impacts and vulnerability in the agricultural sector.

No. of early warning systems in place.

PCT patent applications for agricultural-related innovations. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, OECD Database.

Number of studies and publications available on the database relating to agricultural climate change adaptation, mitigation or both.

Number of hits on web-based platform/ Share of farmers accessing information via SMS or other technologies.

Share of the labour force with higher education in agriculture.

Trends in enrolments and graduates in agriculture college programs.

OECD PSE/CSE database: Trends in public expenditures for the provision or access to extension services; [http://www.oecd.org/agriculture/agriculturalpolicies/producerandconsumersupportestimatesdatabase.htm]

(Public) funding of advisory services, training and extension initiatives aimed at supporting adaptation and mitigation in agriculture.

Share of farmers undertaking training courses and using extension and advisory services.

No. of training modules/materials published and disseminated.

No. of (people benefitting from) water, livestock and natural risk management projects or total capacity of crop storage facilities.

Share of foreign staff in national R&D; number of national R&D staff abroad.

Number of co-operation agreements; number of partners in cooperation agreements.

Climate Change: OECD DAC External Development Finance Statistics: [http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/climate-change.htm]

For Official Use COM/TAD/CA/ENV/EPOC(2015)42

Documents

Transcript of For Official Use COM/TAD/CA/ENV/EPOC(2015)42